Most Insightful, Funniest Comments Of The Week On Techdirt

from the keep-'em-coming dept

In past weeks, we've usually had a few comments that charted high in both categories, but no such luck this week. There was not a single crossover comment in the top ten of either category. This week's winner in the most insightful came from Marcus Carab (once again -- which might make him the first two-time winner in this category...), responding to someone on Friday's post about Sony's regular attack on hackers and makers. The original comment that Marcus was responding to was chiding Techdirt, saying that our posts this week were some sort of reaction to seeing that the future isn't going to be the "fairyland" we want. Sort of an odd statement, but Marcus responded, by pointing out that we have seen where things go in the future, and we're reasonably worried about its impact on those who can't adapt:

It's quite easy to spin what you say in the other direction. Techdirt has indeed seen where the future goes, and it is not towards greater protection and stronger IP laws. Those things are essentially impossible: there is no such thing as effective DRM and no such thing as unpirateable content, and there never will be. Given the nature of what is happening in the world since it became so gloriously interconnected, it is inevitable that information's tendency to be free will overpower its tendency to be expensive.

Given that, when you see companies and creators attacking their fans, throwing temper-tantrums or reducing the value of their product with DRM and removed features, one thing is abundantly clear: they are digging their own graves. Much more frightening is when the government is complicit in this, because it erodes respect for the rule of law and teaches entire generations that those in power are clueless about the realities of technology.

And so a blog like Techdirt highlights these things, because it is the right of every consumer to criticize commercial entities, and because it is the duty of any informed citizen to criticize the government when it violates people's guaranteed rights.

The comment that came in second (juuuuust below Marcus'), from someone named Mike42 (I'm assuming he's not a clone of me), responded to someone on the post about how "piracy" sometimes looks remarkably like "freedom," in noting how freedom of speech and copyright law relate to each other:

The problem is this: copyright is not an inalienable right. Free speech is. Where the two conflict, free speech must win out.

If you're not an American, your confusion is understandable. If you are, then your confusion is unforgivable.

In the "editor's choice" category, I'll highlight two other comments I thought were insightful. SageScape discussed music publishers complaining about a free archive of public domain scores and saying they used the sales from such scores to fund new artists, by noting that this made little sense:

As I noted yesterday over on my blog Legally Sociable, this makes no sense. It is the profit from selling/renting sheet music composed by long-dead composers like Beethoven at above-market prices that allows the G. Schirmer company "to bring out more composers’ work"? Insofar as this even makes sense, they can only mean one of two things:

1. Traditional music publishers can only continue to publish public domain scores if they can continue to sell it at monopoly prices (e.g., $30-50 for "[a] set of parts for a mainstream string quartet", according to the NYTimes article).

2. Traditional music publishers can only afford to take a bath on contemporary composers if it can subsidize them with profits from public domain scores of dead composers.

Analysis: Whatever this is, it's not a business argument. There are plenty of reasons to support new composers (and musicians generally) that have nothing to do with business, of course. One may think that the arts are intrinsically valuable, or may want to give back/pay it forward, or may simply want the prestige of having one's name connected rising talent as a "patron". All fair enough. But there's no business reason for a traditional music publisher to subsidize new talent with monopoly money. Why should it do that? It would make much more money if it simply sold the old public domain stuff and told new composers to take a hike. (Unless, of course, it does make money off the new composers....)

Just because a music publisher may have used some of its profits to support the arts doesn't mean that they should be able to assert legal rights they don't have to public domain musical scores just because the Internet is threatening their traditional business model. The arts can be supported much more directly and efficiently. There's no need to expand copyright law to allow a revenue stream to continue flowing into the publisher's pockets that a trickle may eventually find its way into the tip jar of the up-and-coming composer.

And then a nice short one on the post about cheap video games being more profitable for video game makers, fogbugzd responded to the question posed by the article I linked to that wondered if this was "coincidence or magic" by paraphrasing Arthur C. Clarke:

To the uninformed, basic economics in action can appear indistinguishable from magic.

Ok. On to the funny. The winner here, by a wide margin was a commenter by the name of hmm, who went biblical:

In the beginning, people (apparently) created stuff without copyright, and the corporate firmament was dark and without form.

And then came a lawyer who said "LET THERE BE COPYRIGHT". and there was copyright. And he saw it wasn't good (but it could make a large amount of cash).

And he said "let there be a division between the heavens (where all the men in suits could live) and the earth (where all the criminals...sorry customers..could stay) and the peaceful universe was torn in two....

Now the question that the filthy dirty 'criminals' (for thusly had they been labelled by those on high) asked was "well if it takes incentive to copyright stuff, how was anyone incentivized to sit there and create a copyright law in the first place?". And the Lawyers were exceedingly angry saying "question not your master, for he is always right, and yeah verily are compulsory licenses great, woe unto he that uses p2p". and the lawyer did smite the questioner with lawsuits of fire and brimstone forever and ever, amen

Re: Masnick's view of piracy

I thought it was more like, "I don't support theft, but the security guards watching your every move inside your own home are, wait, what the fuck are they doing there!?! Get out of my house! You're trespassing."

Re: Re: Here little oysters

Nun: Let me get this straight: you don't believe in God because of "Alice in Wonderland"?
Loki: No, "Through the Looking Glass". That poem, "The Walrus and the Carpenter," that's an indictment of organized religion. The walrus, with his girth and his good nature, he obviously represents either Buddha, or, or with his tusks, the Hindu elephant god, Lord Ganesha. That takes care of your Eastern religions. Now the carpenter, which is an obvious reference to Jesus Christ, who was raised a carpenter's son, he represents the Western religions. Now in the poem, what do they do? What do they do? They, they dupe all these oysters into following them and then proceed to shuck and devour the helpless creatures en masse. I don't know what that says to you, but to me it says that following these faiths based on mythological figures ensures the destruction of one's inner being. Organized religion destroys who we are by inhibiting our actions, by inhibiting our decisions out of, out of fear of some, some intangible parent figure who, who shakes a finger at us from thousands of years ago and says, and says, "Do it... do it and I'll fuckin' spank you."
Bartleby: [Bartleby is listening from a nearby seat]
[quietly]
Bartleby: Oh, geez...
Nun: The way you put it... I never really thought about it like that before. What have I been doing with my life? What am I...
Loki: Yeah, I know. Listen, my advice to you: you take this money that you've been collecting for your parish, go get yourself a nice dress, you know? Fix yourself up. Find some man, find some woman, that you can connect with, even for a moment, 'cause that's really all that life is, Sister. It's a series of moments. Why don't you seize yours?
[the nun hesitates, then smiles, nods, and leaves]
Loki: That-a girl. Ah.
[he turns around and sits next to Bartleby with a grin on his face]
Bartleby: You know, here's what I don't get about you. You know for a fact that there is a God. You've been in His presence. He's spoken to you personally. Yet I just heard you claim to be an atheist.
Loki: I just like to fuck with the clergy, man. I just love it, I love to keep those guys on their toes.

This is my favorite interpretation but explains why I don't believe in copyright either.

Re: Masnick's view of piracy

Mike knows he can't win an argument for the abolition of copyright. So he doesn't bother trying. He instead argues for the abolition of copyright enforcement, thereby hoping to accomplish the same thing.

Or maybe, just maybe, there are points of view in between abolitionism and maximalism. Something to think about, hmm?

Re: Re: Re: Masnick's view of piracy

No, but ignoring due process, suing for million dollar judgments against average citizens, and constantly harassing legitimate businesses and technologies are all much worse than individuals downloading music and movies.

Re:

Re:

Artists don't need copyright to make art. No one actually needs copyright to make art. Everybody can make art. If copyright were so important to artists then why bother with Creative Common marks? What's wrong with attempting to reform copyright laws? What happens to a society that blatantly ignores a law on a mass scale?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's view of piracy

Re:

Actually, it is just a way to acknowledge those most drunk on the koolaid, all the while being able to re-use their comments to take slightly more official potshots at the people who spot Mike's rather contradictory statements and general FUD-ing of topics good and bad.

I am going to laugh when we hit a week where an anti-Mike comment is both the most insightful and funny, and he won't have the gonads to run it.

Re: Re: Masnick's view of piracy

You don't have an argument, so you make something up and pretend Mike says it. Yawn, here we go again.

I never use to do that until I started reading Techdirt. I learned from Mike that you can put 2 and nothing together, imply the other 2, and still get to 5.

I have learned:

You can be against piracy, but also against enforcing any laws against piracy, and in fact want them all repealed so there is no piracy, just taking.

You can ignore facts, select only the ones you like, and thread them together with a few weasel words to make it look like you are saying something, all the while giving yourself deniablity so you can say "I didn't say that".

You can ignore entire stories because they no longer support your world view (Radiohead, this week's example)

You can entirely quote someone else's blog post, and because it appears on Techdirt, the opinion is suddenly fact.

You can quote someone else's opinion blog, say "it's something that seems right", and then well called out about supporting the stupid idea, you can say "I didn't say I support it".

Oh yeah, I learned, more than anything, that if you don't agree with Mike you are either, childish, foolish, or uneducated. That and Mike is never, ever wrong. Ever.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's view of piracy

Nope, Mike is often right. Mike is actually very careful to make sure that the data he uses is correct, to the limits of his application. He is often careful to ignore other data or even to deny other views of the data he presents, but he does have data. Figured don't lie, but liars can figure. :)

People are always free to disagree with me, and many a person here has made arguments and points that are valid and interesting. Mike often has interesting points of view. Where I tend to disagree with him is the theory that only his view can be right, no matter how many twists of logic he had to use to get there. I tend to get on him when his assertions are based on "piracy is here, deal with it". That is especially true when he gets all uppity and arrogant about people taking legal action to try to enforce the law. Much of it requires that you ignore the bigger issue (people breaking the law) to look at smaller issues (like Righthaven's business license being shown as expired, may be because the state is behind processing paperwork). Ignore the elephant, let's talk about peanut shells.

So often, because Mike starts with what I consider a corrupted point of view (piracy is here, don't fight it), much of what he puts forward as a result is questionable. It's flat earth stuff.

Re: Re: Re: Here little oysters

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's view of piracy

So is he right or is he twisting the data to look like he's right? It can't be both. He's either right or he's lying. What you see as Mike always pretending to be right, I see as him pointing out what is a failure to learn from what is right in front you. What sense is there to point out the error in something that you have no way of knowing if it's even an error? Why do you even see it as a matter of right or wrong? Mike doesn't point out that they're wrong and he's right. He merely points out that they just make the same mistakes over and over.

Copying information is a fact of the digital era. Making anti-infringement laws and enforcing them isn't going to change the fact that information is easy to copy. Information is easy to copy, live with it. What's not copyable? The time and effort you put into the creation of the original work is not copyable. Architects, landscapers, drafters, and other design-related professions make a living on that fact. They know that people will pay them for their labor. Labor is the one truly scarce good in this world. If people want something made, they will have to pay you to make it. Enforcing copyright is about as effective as telling someone not to think of pink elephants.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's view of piracy

So is he right or is he twisting the data to look like he's right? It can't be both.

Actually he can be both.

Based on the data and information he narrowly selects, he often is "right" if you only look at what is presented. If you look a little further (or read some of the background information that it is based on) he often enough twisting the data to make himself look right.

For those people who want to believe, he is right and the information is "right there in front of you" (usually backed up with a link to another techdirt opinion piece). For the rest of us, it's the start of a chase for actual truth.

Mike doesn't point out that they're wrong and he's right. He merely points out that they just make the same mistakes over and over.

Did you see what you did there? He isn't saying they are wrong, he just says that make the same mistakes over and over. Isn't a mistake doing it wrong? Isn't stopping that mistake (and doing it Mike's way) make it right? I don't even think you realize the very basic problem here.

Copying information is a fact of the digital era. Making anti-infringement laws and enforcing them isn't going to change the fact that information is easy to copy. Information is easy to copy, live with it.

Driving your car twice the speed limit is easy too. We have laws against it. There is little or no attempt to slow down cars by putting limiters on them (say making impossible for a car to go more than 70MPH ever), we just apply the law. It's the same with copying someone else's work without permission: Just because you can do it doesn't make it right.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's view of piracy

Ignoring the personal attacks ya bring up something that you might want to take a look at.

often is "right" if you only look at what is presented. If you look a little further (or read some of the background information that it is based on) he often enough twisting the data to make himself look right.

Driving your car twice the speed limit is easy too. We have laws against it. There is little or no attempt to slow down cars by putting limiters on them (say making impossible for a car to go more than 70MPH ever), we just apply the law. It's the same with copying someone else's work without permission: Just because you can do it doesn't make it right.

Kettle black there bud.

Oh and by the way people will never stop rewarding, let alone using it as an appeal to authority(the law) as an argument to point out it is or is not wrong. How many times you going to have the urine hit you in the face before you listen to the person telling you to put up the toilet seat... oh wait, its face away from the wind.

Fearing people will stop doing anything is also a real good point. /sard

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's view of piracy

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's view of piracy

Did you see what you did there? He isn't saying they are wrong, he just says that make the same mistakes over and over. Isn't a mistake doing it wrong? Isn't stopping that mistake (and doing it Mike's way) make it right? I don't even think you realize the very basic problem here.

Is it the man who is right or it is the principles that are right.

You keep questioning Mike, but Mike is just a man, other people here gather around Mike not because he is wonderful, but because they have the same vision, the same principles and also like yourself come here to try and discredit those principals attacking the man as a way to reach the ideas, the thing is I don't need Mike to know that he is right, I now for a fact that treating people badly always ends badly, I know for a fact that piracy is never going away, it is not a natural construct it is an artificial one that its a barrier to what people want to do, I know for a fact that the more you try to control something the more chaotic things become because so much energy is spent trying to hold things together when you could let go of some control and enjoy a much more pleasant environment, I know for a fact that piracy has no negative effects on sales otherwise radio and TV would have destroyed vinyl, VHS and movie theaters a long time ago, I know for a fact that the industry is corrupt, I know for a fact what the IRS reports and it goes against what the industry says, I have seen with my own eyes people giving away CD's to get people to go to live performances and this is how they make money, I see authors sell more after pirating their own works and none of that was news to me here.

If your objective is to try to make Mike look dumb you are just a bad spindoctor who doesn't know what is doing.

Well of course if you are trying to get at Mike for something he did to you somehow in someway at someplace at sometime. You don't like Mike and you just want to see him disappear is that it?

Driving your car twice the speed limit is easy too. We have laws against it. There is little or no attempt to slow down cars by putting limiters on them (say making impossible for a car to go more than 70MPH ever), we just apply the law. It's the same with copying someone else's work without permission: Just because you can do it doesn't make it right.

Cars don't have stealth technology and are not hard to track and they mostly use public ways, piracy on the other hand has stealth, is notorious difficult to track and don't need public ways to be accomplished, more it has been going on for centuries.

Also there is the question why we need those laws anyways, it is a monopoly clearly being abused and it is now affecting normal people, this happened before and kings got the guillotine, monks got beheaded today things are a bit different people just ignore those laws, like the film industry that moved to California to get away from Edison's patents or the textile industry that fled England and established itself in America and ignored all patents on the matter so do people will ignore copyrights that are stringent, unenforceable and ridiculous. I laughed, I laugh and sure will be laughing in the future, because I don't even pirate anything anymore and I still get a lot of things for free, Jamendo is fantastic, Magnatune, films from Youtube for free like Snowblind that is on par with what big Studios are offering nowadays, doubt? go see Cyclops (TV 2008).

Also people have noticed the web as the new project from Felicia Day, Dragon Age: Redemption was paid for by a game producer wow! more she is being financed by none other than Microsoft why?
Google may do the same thing, Netflix may find it cheaper to start financing others like Felicia and they have the money to accomplish those things.

I think it is in this one(Felicia Day Launches a DRAGON AGE of REDEMPTION ) that she says, she started The Guild and there was no money and fans supported everything and now she gets a lot of proposals to do things. She is somebody even though nobody in Hollywood knows her and she is making money. OMG! this is the end of the world!

Other people getting serious about the internet is Revision3, but they are not the only ones, although they don't share my views on copyrights, but heck it is free and it is on the internet and it is international they don't have exclusive contracts with distributors in other countries I can watch what they produce anywhere in the world is that fantastic or what? The old dudes are screwed they can't compete with free and they can't even manage their global distribution.

Studios and labels are f'ed, they put themselves into a corner and they have no way of winning, piracy broke the distribution monopoly and it ain't coming back, and the more they try to get it back the more free as in freedom legal alternatives get created, they should have paid attention to what happened to Software companies after they got greedy and started to make ridiculous demands from consumers. Consumers just invented their own software and it is free, any Linux distribution comes out of the box with tens of thousands of free apps that can do virtually anything, even this didn't break the back of software companies though, they still have their place and it is all good.

Re: Re:

Incredibly I think you may have a small point there.
There is no transparency on the process, there is no place to watch what gets voted or not like a dynamic list of the most flagged insightful comments of the day, week and month, so you can keep making those absurd claims.

Still I don't see the problem even a wrong clock is right twice a day.

Also there is the counterpoint thingy, it would be wonderful to have some of the douches from the other side being able to post an article here, because I just want to see everyone gang up on the dude LoL

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's view of piracy

>> Link them. I want to see what his idea of "sensible copyright judgments" are.

I know this doesn't address your question directly, but I think you might agree that he is a big believer in "social mores".. letting the market reward those who create and punish those who plagiarize.

>> If they are not ones that would completely erode and make impossible the wide-scale task of protecting IP online, I will stand corrected.

That is an example of a penalty for downloading files online that is not "utterly ridiculous" (Mike's words).

First, Mike didn't say he agrees such penalties are a good idea. I believe he thinks suing people is the wrong approach. Yes, this essentially implies copyright law would be redundant if people were smart about the matter. However, one can easily say that Mike has found an example of a "sensible copyright judgment", at least given the current law.

Second, in terms of defending copyright at a wide-scale, you already know how he feels about copyright so don't bother looking for examples; however, he has not been "vehemently opposed to ANY form of anti-piracy enforcement" as you claimed in the original comment.

He is "vehemently" against going after people who link (and while violating their due process) because that is simply free speech. It is saying that something exists over. Linking doesn't make a judgment about whether one should or should not go and download something. If you have a license or are leveraging fair use (eg, to teach), then you can go there legally, and the linker is simply helping you along.

Mike praised that ruling and brought attention to a second part of it: "Separately, the judge in this case noted that the industry seems to be totally overreacting to the issue of file sharing, noting that people have been sharing and trading content for ages"

First, this is definitely a case of Mike agreeing with a ruling. I know this is not what you are asking either, but it shows that those wanting to protect IP are over-reaching even beyond what the law allows.

Which brings us to the second part, does this ruling cripple IP protection online? Well, it does the right thing which is not to attack free speech in lieu of going after those putting up the content.

As we saw recently in a case of a domain take down, the very example used to justify the take down was of files that the copyright holders had voluntarily uploaded to the site. Given that all 4 examples used by this very large wealthy protective firm to seek the take down were examples of likely non-infringement, this might suggest that it's very possible that most files online might have been put there at some point or other by someone who had authority, making it a mute point to discuss IP enforcement.

Can you follow due process, have reasonable penalties, respect fair use, and simultaneously manage to enforce IP online (ie, swat all the flies "infringing" IP)?

I think this website makes a very good argument that it would be easier to drink the water in the Atlantic Ocean without drinking any from the Pacific.

Re: Re: Re: Masnick's view of piracy

>> You can be against piracy, but also against enforcing any laws against piracy, and in fact want them all repealed so there is no piracy, just taking.

Be against piracy:
-- Don't break the law. Check.
Be against enforcing laws against piracy:
-- Those laws are bad. For example, the penalties are ridiculous; fair use is not ample enough to fully respect the First Amendment; progress is very possibly not being promoted; and copyright law lasts at least a few decades too long. Further, the enforcement action is violating Constitutional protections (eg, due process). Check.
Want all repealed:
-- If the laws are bad, repeal them. Check.
Just taking
-- Yeah, like the many people covered in the case studies and elsewhere, who have allowed the public to "just take" while they made money off of this "just taking". Check.

Re: Re: Re: Masnick's view of piracy

>> You can ignore facts, select only the ones you like, and thread them together with a few weasel words to make it look like you are saying something, all the while giving yourself deniablity so you can say "I didn't say that".

Since I suspect you are confusing some things and exaggerating others, I'll have to request that you provide links.

>> You can ignore entire stories because they no longer support your world view (Radiohead, this week's example)

I would like to know more about this; however, I have sent techdirt at least one link of something I thought was important and would be enjoyed here and never heard anything about it again. I'm sure Mike gets tons of links and can't cover everything at once.

In any case, bring it up in a comment within a related thread if possible.

>> You can entirely quote someone else's blog post, and because it appears on Techdirt, the opinion is suddenly fact.

Please provide a link. I think you might be talking about a case recently where someone's views were covered on techdirt. I don't think it was misrepresented that these were views by person X. It would help if you quote/link if you want us to have a fair chance to reply.

>> You can quote someone else's opinion blog, say "it's something that seems right", and then well called out about supporting the stupid idea, you can say "I didn't say I support it".

Yes, link/quote if possible.

>> Oh yeah, I learned, more than anything, that if you don't agree with Mike you are either, childish, foolish, or uneducated. That and Mike is never, ever wrong. Ever.

Some comments do state that, but you do ask for it. Why? Because you post as anonymous, so people might think you are one person rather than another. [Yes, I'm taking my chances just like you. *Come and get me you filthy animals!*]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's view of piracy

>> I tend to get on him when his assertions are based on "piracy is here, deal with it". That is especially true when he gets all uppity and arrogant about people taking legal action to try to enforce the law.

As stated in another comment:

**
Be against piracy:
-- Don't break the law. Check.
Be against enforcing laws against piracy:
-- Those laws are bad. For example, the penalties are ridiculous; fair use is not ample enough to fully respect the First Amendment; progress is very possibly not being promoted; and copyright law lasts at least a few decades too long. Further, the enforcement action is violating Constitutional protections (eg, due process). Check.
Want all repealed:
-- If the laws are bad, repeal them. Check.
Just taking
-- Yeah, like the many people covered in the case studies and elsewhere, who have allowed the public to "just take" while they made money off of this "just taking". Check.
**

Why would Mike say "deal with it"?

Well one reason is (to quote from comments again):

> Can you follow due process, have reasonable penalties, respect fair use, and simultaneously manage to enforce IP online (ie, swat all the flies "infringing" IP)?

Probably not.

Meanwhile, people are sharing their works AND making money (sometimes much more money than "anyone" anticipated).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's view of piracy

Re: Re: Re: Re: Here little oysters

Yes, actually, everyone who has an Insider badge right now, has it for free.

Not entirely true. There are plenty of folks who have bought more recently, since we extended the term for existing users. So those people are still within the paid term... But, yes, many people bought before and had theirs extended for free. Which, obviously, means we've "devalued" the whole concept, amiright?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's view of piracy

Re: Re: Re:

But I'm not a freetard, nor am I a sheeple. I simply choose to consume things, and support those I like. 99% of all I consume is strictly legal, and the other 1% is stuff that I can get quasi-legally, due to being fansubs. I support the official release where I can, and would buy most of thew DVDs when they come out (if ever) in my region.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's view of piracy

What does spoofing have to do with tracing the average pirate on P2P or bit torrent?

You don't know much about what is going on do you?

According to a consultant who is paid to assist with enforcement - there is a major problem with people who use hacked cable boxes. In some areas you can't get a conviction for this because half the jury are using them too.

If you are using a hacked box then pretty much everything you do is piracy - and by definition you IP is spoofed - because you don't even have a legitimate one.

The upshot is that any piracy enforcement will be against some innocent 3rd party whose IP you borrowed.

You make the mistake of assuming that because you have to be technically knowledgeable to spoof an IP it follows that only the small minority of technically knowledgeable people will do it - whereas in reality anyone can do it, using a hacked cable box they bought out of the back of a van from a bloke they met at the pub.

Re: Re: Re: Masnick's view of piracy

If Mike was in between, you'd see posts both in favor and against enforcement.

Not necessarily. Mike is against bad enforcement like traffic police are against bad driving. They don't haul you over to tell you that you are driving well.
As it is, all I've seen on this site are posts against.
Actually there have been a number of cases I can think of - like when copyright was finally enforced against the Canadian record companies for not paying the artists (putting them on a "pending" list). If I remember correctly he thought that particular enforcement didn't go far enough.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's view of piracy

Freedom of speech vs. Copyright

This is nonsense:

The problem is this: copyright is not an inalienable right. Free speech is. Where the two conflict, free speech must win out.

TechDirt, since you state you are FOR artists rights, would you care to explain how it is their free speech should give people the right to make use of other peoples works as they like without compensating them for it? Once you've tried to argue that case, and believe you've created a convincing case for it, will you then care to explain what incentive there will be to create ANYTHING if you believe freedom of speech negates their right to protect themselves against theft?

Thanks!

And this comment by Mike42 is stupid (and insulting):

"If you're not an American, your confusion is understandable. If you are, then your confusion is unforgivable".

Oh so America is the shining city on the hill for freedom of speech? So tell me - what worth is freedom of speech if it's not married to political freedom then? In the US you have a 2 party system, with one party being right-wing and the other ultra-right-wing. Together they have created a society with unfettered access by corporations to throw any sums of money (without having to declare that they did so) into elections, a media run by those same corporations, and a society with income disparity that would make a Banana Republic blush + one of it not THE highest illiteracy rates in the Western world, one of the highest child mortality rates, highest murder rates, a for-profit prison system that sends 20% of black youth to jail at one time or another, endemic racism....do you want me to go on about the wonderfully free speech place that the US is?

Sure, you can shout all you want on a blog, because the system is so rigged that it won't amount to squat anyway. So get a passport Mike42 before you start talking about other countries, because it sounds like you've barely been outside of Kansas.

To the haters.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's view of piracy

You keep questioning Mike, but Mike is just a man, other people here gather around Mike not because he is wonderful, but because they have the same vision, the same principles and also like yourself come here to try and discredit those principals attacking the man as a way to reach the ideas,

I cut it short, because that was rather a run on sentence.

Mike is doing what most "leaders of the revolution" do, they get in front of whatever is popular with people, and ride it to "victory". Why do you think a tech blog got all wild about pat down TSA searches (which involves neither tech nor dirt, unless you consider latex gloves to get tech, or if you think the process is perhaps dirty). It's here because it resonates with a group of people who are going to go along with his views.

Studios and labels are f'ed

The thing that is most funny about all of this is that the studios and labels continue to turn out the product everyone wants, the products that are most often pirated, the latest thing everyone talks about. I would have much more respect for the "free music, free movie" movement if you guys weren't tripping over yourselves to download the latest from the people you hate so much.

That is what pegs the hypocrisy meter here. Everyone bad mouths the content production companies, and then dives for the content as soon as possible. Mike tops it by not being against piracy, and certainly for not suggesting that people should avoid the content.

So while some of your views may match up to Mike, what he does is he keeps adjusting the message to stay ahead of your opinions. Ever notice how he floats out stories about certain topics, and when they don't get comments, they tend never to come back? Yet if something hits a nerve, he is suddenly all over it. On a slow week (like last week) he just hauls out the hammer and starts wailing away on the usual suspects, while the crowd cheers him on. It's opinion as a circus.

As for your example, there will always be exceptions to the rules. There will always be a Greatful Dead, a Phish, a Kevin Smith in the mix. But they are exceptions to the rules, and even they get their most exposure and build their audiences when they would inside the system.

So just remember: When you find yourself agreeing with Mike, think about it a bit more. Are you agreeing with him, or is he merely feeding you exactly what you want to hear?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here little oysters

You once admitted that you bought a crystalball because that is all you could afford at the time. Which means that Mike is really eating your wallet. Enjoy your virtual td goods, just remember they have no value. You can discover the value of your virtual goods by trying to resell them.

"(funny how you insist new business models could never work because people just want everything for free then complain when those business models do work and make fun the people who spend money)"

Funny, you don't know who I am but yet want to put words in my mouth. Around techdirt that is known as a strawman. Nice try.

Re: Masnick's view of piracy

It's like saying "I don't support theft, but the security guards outside the Mac store are fascist and should not be tolerated!"

It's more like: "I don't support shoplifters, but hiring security guards to follow around every customer that walks in the door and question them constantly about their motives is not only expensive, but likely to drive those customers to competitors in the long run."

G Schirmer

I have to assume the SageScape comment is posted as one of the 'funniest' comments, as it is clearly is far from insightful. Where to start? "Monopoly" pricing for a string quartet at $30 - $50? Please take us through your insight into the cost of producing this item: escalating paper costs, printing, shipping & distribution, for a print run in the hundreds of copies (that's right - even the most popular string quartets do not warrant print runs in the thousands.) Not to mention the editing & typesetting costs, which, although they can be amortized over the life of a print run, are considerable.

Public domain music has been available for years at what you might call 'market' prices (though I suspect your version of 'above-market' is anything above $0.00.) Don't want to pay the outrageous price of $30 for a string quartet? Try Kalmus Publications (for example.) Of course, what you'll get is cheaply copied music (photocopied from an edition old enough to have left public domain.) Dover Publications is another good example - these are publishers who have found a niche making public domain music available at bargain-basement prices. But you sacrifice quality for price, as in most business models.

As G. Schirmer (and others) have run into more & more legitimate competition for their publications of music from the public domain, they have been forced (by the market) to make positive moves - re-engraving old titles, commissioning new editions, adding CDs, etc. If a free music website wishes to make public domain music available, of course that is their right. They can easily locate editions to copy, in the same way that Kalmus or Dover do. Or they can typeset and post their own editions. Unless, of course, they are too lazy to do the work that publishers have done before them.

On the subject of new composers, the reason why G Schirmer objects to being pirated is, honestly, besides the point. (It's unfortunate that they made the statement they did, as it deflects from the real issue.) Still, I think it's safe to say that GS does lose money on the printed copies of new composers' music that they produce (though performance rights and rentals should make up the difference.) Today's music community will shortly get the world they asked for, where concerts of contemporary music will be played from iPads (by the wealthy) or from sheets of music printed on a home printer and taped together (by others.) Readers of these blogs will likely see that as progress, so you are to be congratulated.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's view of piracy

"Why do you think a tech blog got all wild about pat down TSA searches (which involves neither tech nor dirt, unless you consider latex gloves to get tech, or if you think the process is perhaps dirty)."

Facepalm! This whole TSA stuff started with the retarded new awesome sure never to fail and totally necessary SCANNERS. Wanna take a stab at arguing that THOSE aren't tech?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's view of piracy

it isn't a sensible ruling for an American court, as it would cost more than that to file the case to start with.

Discovery against the ISP to get the user information would cost thousands.

Re-filing when you have the information is another major cost.

Take it to court (see Thomas or Tenenbaum) costs you another pile.

$300 for 44 songs is a meaningless number, it doesn't cover costs, and it certainly won't stop anyone from pirating in the future. It's like a $1 speeding ticket. Do you really think that changes people's behaviors?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here little oysters

Well actually, I agree that the expiry of any digital good is a little off-putting. And I do see how the whole idea of the crystal ball treads a little closely to the idea of windowed releases. I initially thought both these decisions were slightly odd, though I can think of other ways of looking at them, and I also accept that the RtB offerings are (as is often stated) an experiment.

So my decision to buy really came down a lot more to the CwF part of the equation. You know, the part you always mock by claiming that people just want things for free. I would not have spent $15 on a badge and crystal ball on most blogs, not even those that I regularly enjoy the content on - but the community on Techdirt, the level of interaction and all the general CwF-ing going on made me happy to spend a few bucks in support of the site and to get a couple of small perks (silly though they may somewhat be)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here little oysters

So you admit that you remember something I said about a year ago, but you deny the fact that you are obviously one of the same handful of trolls who have floated around this site for ages, all spouting the same arguments.

I love that you try to hide behind the AC badge to avoid being held accountable for anything you have ever said. But I'm afraid I don't buy it: I am entirely confident that you are one of the people who have mocked the CwF+RtB model in the past, and I doubt any regular reader of this site would disagree with me. If you don't like it, put a consistent name to your comments.

Re: Freedom of speech vs. Copyright

TechDirt, since you state you are FOR artists rights, would you care to explain how it is their free speech should give people the right to make use of other peoples works as they like without compensating them for it?

I don't believe I've ever said that free speech rights give people the right to make use of other people's works without paying for it.

However, I certainly do think that there are many cases where (a) it is legal to do so (fair use, parody, etc.) and (b) that it often is quite good for everyone when that happens.

Once you've tried to argue that case, and believe you've created a convincing case for it, will you then care to explain what incentive there will be to create ANYTHING if you believe freedom of speech negates their right to protect themselves against theft?

Hilarious. Just a few days ago someone berated me for saying that copyright supporters make this argument, and yet, here you are making this argument. Just a few days ago we showed that nearly all content created today has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright. People create for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with copyright.

The problem in your statement is the implicit -- and totally false -- assumption that the only way to make money from content is to lock it up. It's not. We've demonstrated over and over again that this is false, so why would you claim otherwise?

Re: Re: Masnick's view of piracy

It's not the following them around or the questioning even.
It's the strip searching when they leave alongside being forced to endure a presentation explaining to you that if instead of buying the things they bought they had stolen them, then that would've been a very bad thing.

Re: Re: Re: Freedom of speech vs. Copyright

>> The vast majority of work that appears minus copyright is caca. You and everyone else know this, as those works are what all your precious freetards actually end up pirating.

There are hardly any works being created today without copyright. What happens is that once someone comes up with something that is not caca and gets an offer, they tend to sell out, perhaps thinking that is the way to riches.

The landscape is changing with more people, though still using copyright perhaps, moving to licensing that encourages sharing and even the creation of derivative works.

For software, there is a bunch of high quality material created with sharing licenses, but the software field grew up with the Internet and is also very young relative to the field of art and most authored works so it has less resistance to go up against.

This is not too bad would you say http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRsGyueVLvQ ? It's a promising start and done all with sharing licenses (software, movie, everything). In fact, the copyright license don't just allow sharing, they really promote it, and they reveal all the blueprints so that you can more easily take the movie (3d models, etc) off in your own direction.

Re: Freedom of speech vs. Copyright

>> TechDirt, since you state you are FOR artists rights, would you care to explain how it is their free speech should give people the right to make use of other peoples works as they like without compensating them for it?

Did you compensate Webster or the people who came up with the words you used to build your comment?

Did you compensate people who have earlier on written phrases and sentences similar to what you just wrote?

Did you compensate those who have had much earlier in time those ideas you now express?

Please post back to let me know when you intend to
(a) to compensate these people, and
(b) send Internet users a bill for downloading a copy of your comment.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here little oysters

CwF+RtB is an experiment. Then its not so different than the experiment that Crispin Glover is performing that techdirt decided to mock. The usual crowd around td sure has a firm idea of what kinds of experiments are acceptable.

Seems to me that once Mike started offing RtB that the site's focus shifted from building a community to connecting with fans. I would argue that building a community and connecting with fans are not the same thing - I am part of the community but not really a fan. Mike is after your cash and its working, the best part is that you like it. From where I'm sitting that makes you a sucker. Its hard to have a real conversation with a bunch of self-righteous suckers that feel close to td because they parted with some cash.

The main question is to what extent should copyright law go so that it helps those who use it without exacting a larger opportunity costs. Actually, to be Constitutionally justified it needs to promote the progress. I think many would agree that today's current copyright regime is far form promoting the progress when we factor in the long length, it's far-reaching ability to snuff new creative content that might qualify as "derivative works", the limited fair use recognized in practice, the absurd fines, etc.

Re: Re: Freedom of speech vs. Copyright

>> Did you compensate Webster..

The main point of that particular comment was that:
(a) copyright is too long.. if I mow a lawn this year, I don't expect to get a royalty for 100 years.. and
(b) that copyright goes way beyond literal copying of the full work.

However, this site also argues that there are many ways to make money (including more money) without restricting society via any monopoly grant.

In my opinion, avoiding monopolies would:
(a) be more respectful of everyone's free speech Constitutional rights;
(b) avoid many of the ambiguities and pitfalls that lead to horrible unconstitutional execution when trying to enforce the copyright law and create uncertainty in the market place;
(c) not stifle many artists that would like to leverage existing works -- people should and may already have a Constitutional right to leverage *culture* almost without bounds within their free expression rights since doing so is important for creating a lot of important speech that will be more easily acknowledged and because culture is deeply ingrained in people's heads;
(d) enable overall more jobs (including those by the artists); and
(e) promote the general welfare.

A big problem is that it is not criminal mentality to find something you like online and click on it to hear it or to want to save it to hear later on or to want to share it with others or to want to reuse it later on (especially in a noncommercial environment or if you give attribution).

People intuitively know that you don't stop anyone from enjoying the same thing when you copy information over to your computer. You are spreading wealth. And you are promoting the progress when you study it.

You also don't stop anyone from making money. People create things all the time for free. Some even pay others to look at what they have created. All authors are capable of putting their digital work on a tangible media and selling that or related things. There are many other possibilities, for example, by selling their time as the authoritative expert able to further transform that work for a patron.

Have you taken a look at the case studies here (as a starting point)?

When you speed sufficiently in a vehicle, you increase the chances of hurting someone else and of not surviving from a crash. Yet what are speeding tickets going for these days? $1 million? No, not even close.

Is it not clear that the penalties being sought for downloading digital files are out of whack?

Let's compromise in 2011 so that the laws actually work for the betterment of society without surprising anyone too much:

An immediate compromise that would respect free speech is to deny any infringement for sharing or using any digital content to create digital works (arguably this is already allowed under many circumstances under Constitutional authority and fair use but is being prosecuted).

In return, if you move this digital information to a tangible media, then you risk restrictions (especially if you try to earn money). However, even here, we need to respect derivative works that add a significant amount of originality. We also need to cut the copyright duration down significantly.

Sharing information is natural, healthy, and contributes to progress. It also creates a very significant potential that the author can tap into for monetary compensation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here little oysters

Hm, yeah, I guess it was only a couple of months. You ... win? You know, I'm not even really sure what we're arguing about anymore. But if you do not think the CwF+RtB model needs to be mocked, why are you mocking Rose, myself and the entire Techdirt community for being a functioning example of it?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here little oysters

You are not sure when you made a particular comment but you are sure that I am "one of the people who have mocked the CwF+RtB model in the past". Now you are not sure what we are arguing about. Are you sure of anything?

You go ahead and continue to butter the Walrus's bread. I will continue to laugh at you. It is funny to watch you rationalize the 'value' of your expiring virtual goods.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick's view of piracy

Re: Re: Freedom of speech vs. Copyright

"The problem in your statement is the implicit -- and totally false -- assumption that the only way to make money from content is to lock it up. It's not. We've demonstrated over and over again that this is false, so why would you claim otherwise?"

That's the scary bit they hate. That's the bit that makes them foam at the mouth in terror. That's the bit that makes them come running here sceaming "SHUT THIS GUY UP!! SHUT HIM UP NOW!!!"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here little oysters

It is funny to watch you rationalize the 'value' of your expiring virtual goods.

It's funny to watch you not even read what I say. You might have noticed that I agreed the goods weren't all that valuable to me, and that I wouldn't have bought them otherwise. But I like Techdirt and wanted to support the blog. I was not tricked into it - it was a conscious decision to spend a small amount of money on something I didn't *really* need because I thought it might be neat and because I knew the money was going to support a business I like.

Is that really so hard for you to grasp? Because if it is, it might explain why you don't think new business models will work. Newsflash: not everyone is a giant gaping asshole like you.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here little oysters

"Because if it is, it might explain why you don't think new business models will work."

Newsflash: there are other 'new' and not new business models besides CwF+RtB. Take your head out of your ass and you might realize that. Turns out that ther eis more than one way to experiment. Your fanboi tunnel vision is blinding you.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here little oysters

This is where you got it wrong:
"you are 100% sure that everyone but you is the sucker"

No, I'm sure that people who only bought the crystalball are suckers. Obviously, that does nto include 'everyone'. Lots of folks in the community here are not suckers, mostly you call them trolls.

woosh is right, you just don't get it. Based on the way you get defensive you probably never will, you'll spend all of your time defending yourself and no time considering anything that your master did not present to you.

Re: Here little oysters

IN THE MEAN TIME KEEP LETTEN THE WHOLE FAMILY STEAL FOR YOUR YEARLY VACTION. WHILE IF I HAVE A HEART ATTACK, GOD FORGIVE I HAVE A PHONE TO CALL 911, BETTER YET, BETTER DEAD HE'S CRIPPLE, LOUNGED HIS MEMORY, LET HIM DIE! I'LL HAVE MORE MONEY NEXT YEAR, EVERYONE JUST KEEP HACKING.